Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 5‑D of 1970, decided on 23rd June 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 30th October 1969, in Criminal Revision Case No. 599 of 1968).
------S. 342‑Examination of accused‑No copy of accused's statement recorded tinder S. 342, filed before Supreme Court‑Contention that alleged confessional statement was not put to accused in his examination uncle, S. 342 Not possible of test in circumstances‑‑ Court can only presume that examination was property conducted‑Even otherwise, such, being an irregularity, could not vitiate trial in absence of evidence of any prejudice.
---S 411 stolen property S.411 covers both receipt and retention of stolen property Accused charged for retaining stolen property and actually found in possession of such property almost immediately after theft, held rightly convicted under S.411 and on proper charge.
R. C. Panday Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 23rd June 1970.
‑The petitioner was charged under section 411, P. P. C. with dishonestly retaining one German Patromax Light, a gunny bag containing 1 maund and 13 seers of rice and some other articles belonging to Anisur Rahman (P. W. 1) knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
On the night following Sunday, the 28th September 1965, there was a theft in the shop of Anisur Raman. Anlur Rahman, after informing others about the theft, followed the line of fallen rice from his shop which led to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was interrogated by the local Chairman before whom he confessed his guilt, took him and others with him to a nearby sugar‑cane field and from there brought out a German Patromax Light, a gunny bag containing 1 maund and 13 seers of rice and some other articles. Anisur Ralrman identified r the Patromax and the rice bag as belonging to him.
The petitioner set up the defence that he was being falsely implicated out of grudge, because, be owed some money to Anisur Rahman. The latter had concocted this case to bring pressure on him to repay the money.
Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution who fully supported the prosecution case the petitioner was, accordingly, convicted. His conviction was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Dinajpur, and a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan, has dismissed his revision. He now seeks special leave to appeal.
Three points have been urged on his behalf, namely ; (1) that the confession before the local Union Council Chairman was inadmissible, (2) that the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing his exclusive possession of the stolen articles and (3) that the alleged confession was not put to him in his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Even if the confession is excluded from consideration, there is abundant other evidence to establish that the stolen articles were in the possession of the petitioner. He took the witnesses to the sugar‑cane field from where he brought out the stolen articles. This he could not have done unless he placed them there himself. The sugar‑cane field is not a place where normally articles, like a Patromax Light and a bag of rice, are stored.
There is no possibility of testing the third contention ether for, no copy of the examination of the petitioner under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed. In its absence we can only presume that the examination was properly conducted. In any event, this is only an irregularity which in the absence of any evidence of prejudice, cannot vitiate .the trial.
Learned counsel lastly sought to urge that the charge in this case was defective, as the petitioner was not charged for receiving the stolen property. Section 411 of the Pakistan penal Code covers both receiving and retaining. In this case the petitioner was charged with retaining the stolen property and it has been well‑established that he was in possession of the stolen property almost immediately after the theft. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted under section 411, P. P. C. on a proper charge.
There is no substance in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. .
Petition Dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer